Thursday, May 23, 2013

Swaroop sarkar on CNN IBN channel on episode of Face The Nation : Phaneesh Murthy case: Is sexual harassment in the workplace a double edged sword?

Swaroop sarkar on CNN IBN channel on episode of Face The Nation on 22 May 2013


FTN: Phaneesh Murthy case: Is sexual harassment in the workplace a double edged sword?


Video also available at :-

Phaneesh Murthy, the disgraced former chief executive of iGATE Corp, may lose as much as about Rs 84 crore ($15.09 million) in severance benefits after being sacked by the US-based firm for professional misconduct. Murthy, who was sacked on Tuesday for not disclosing a relationship with a subordinate, however, is entitled to a post termination benefit of $6,000 per month till he and his spouse reach the age of 65

Sunday, May 19, 2013

HC relief to husband from paying maintenance

HC relief to husband from paying maintenance

TNN | May 18, 2013, 07.07 PM IST

MUMBAI: A man who was directed by the family court to pay maintenance to his wife even though it had dismissed his plea for divorce has got relief from Bombay high court which has stayed the order.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice F M Reis decided an application in a pending appeal filed by Subhash Ganguly (name changed) challenging the apex court's February 21, 2013 order dismissing his divorce petition and directing him to pay his wife Babita (name changed) Rs 20,000 as monthly maintenance.

Subhash filed for divorce in 2008. Babita filed her counterclaim and urged the court to restrain him, his family and agents from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home at Bandra (west). She also sought Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.

Subhash's advocate Smita Gaidhani, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, argued that the petition for divorce having been dismissed, the marital status was not disrupted by the court's order and hence the FC could not have granted maintenance under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Babita's advocate Taubon Irani said the trial judge had already granted maintenance of Rs 20,000 and hence the SC judgment cannot be made applicable.

The judges said the wife had not prayed for maintenance but only for Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses. "As the petition for divorce is dismissed, no further order of maintenance could have been passed either in the petition filed by the husband for divorce or in the counter claim," they said, in their April 18, 2013 order uploaded last week. The judges said the SC judgment applies to the present case and the trial court erred in awarding maintenance. They agreed with Gaidhani that the wife can seek maintenance either under section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The judges allowed Subhash, during pendency of his appeal, to stay in his 2BHK 700 square feet house. Subhash left his house on July 22, 2007 due to harassment at the hands of his wife and her relatives and thereafter was not allowed to enter the hosue. Irani argued that Subhash had subjected Babita to physical and mental cruelty and if he is permitted to stay further complications would arise.

Noting that Subhash is staying in a hotel, the judges said he is entitled to stay in his own house, which he purchased before marriage. They said he has legal right to stay in his own house and laid conditions that the couple would stay in separate bedrooms, have access to common facilities including the kitchen and bathroom and shall not obstruct or interfere with each. They directed Babita to hand the duplicate keys to Subhash. They rejected her plea to stay the order.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013

1/2 controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013 

2/2 controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Divorcee's right on Ex Husband's Property,Inherited/Aquired Zee News 01 May 2013

Divorcee's right on Ex Husband's Property,Inherited/Aquired.

Debate on Zee News 01 May 2013

Panelists Included

Teena Sharma, Social acivist, All India Forgotten Women's Association (AIFWA)
Jyoti Tiwari, Social Activist, All India Forgotten Women's Association (AIFWA)
Sanjay Parikh, Senior SC Lawyer

Should wife get share in husband's property. Marriage Law amendment. NDTV 24x7 01 may 2013

Should wife get share in husband's property. Marriage Law amendment. NDTV 24x7 01 may 2013

Panelists include

Rajan Bhasin from Save Indian Family Foundation
Aparna Chandra , Asst professor , National Law University Delhi
Flavia Agnes, Senior Feminist lawyer
Sanjay Patra, BJP Member

Marriage law amendment Bill - Wife's right on Husband's ancestral property NDTV INDIA

Marriage law amendment Bill - Wife's right on Husband's ancestral property NDTV INDIA 01may13

Deepika Narayan  Bhardwaj , Save Indian family Foundation
Geeta Luthra, senior lawyer Supreme court of India
Kirti Singh, Feminist lawyer
Ranjana Kumari, Feminist from CSR

The other side of dowry disputes - MASHAAL

The other side of dowry disputes

Fifty-three-year-old Damyanti Sharma still shudders at the thought of the night she had to spend at a police station last year. A former school teacher, she never imagined that realizing her long-cherished dream of seeing her only son married would one day turn into her family's worst nightmare. "We treated our daughter-in-law like a daughter. The first two years were smooth. However, soon the fights started and she eventually walked out in 2011. Even though we never abused her or even took dowry, we were implicated in a false dowry harassment case. Since then, our life has only been about legal hassles and visiting courts," Damyanti claimed.

Every Sunday, a group of women in situations similar to Damyanti's gather at Borivli and Mulund to discuss the atrocities committed on them under women-centric laws such as the Dowry Act (498-A) and the Domestic Violence Act. These women are not "victims" under the law but like Damyanti are those who face prosecution, after their daughters-in-law and sisters-in-law file complaints against them. This situation has led to the birth of a group called Mothers and Sisters of Husband Against Abuse of Law (MASHAAL), a part of a nationwide forum called the Indian Family Foundation (IFF).

The forum is fighting against what it calls "criminalization of marital disputes". The forum alleges that of late, it has become a fashion for a wife's family to threaten the husband's family with false dowry and maintenance cases if their demands are not met.

"The disambiguation lies in the word 'women' in such laws, which actually implies just wife. The laws seem to be immune to mothers and sisters of the husband. Their problems in such situations also need amplification," says Jinesh Zaveri, an activist and a co-founder of MASHAAL.

For a 61-year-old Dahisar-based architect, the act of helping such distressed families has helped him and his 31-year-old son deal with their own legal battle. "While helping these people, I never ever thought that we would end up in such a situation," he says. His son, who was a computer engineer in the Middle East, lost his job as a consequence of the false complaint filed by his daughter-in-law's family, he alleged. "Her family was against the idea of her marrying outside the community and hence they took her back and filed the complaint to harass us and extort money," he says.

Both father and son were granted bail soon after being detained.

A reason for the misuse of such laws, say legal experts, is the manner in which such laws are framed and the state machinery involved in executing them.

"Though women-centric laws are welcome and the need of the hour, one must bear in mind that they cannot be framed under pressure and in the absence of a rationale. The laws must be such that while women can get the maximum benefit, there is very little room for ambiguity and misuse," a lawyer said.

He adds that the police also needs to be sensitized on how to handle such cases and that these cases must be registered and arrests made only after conducting investigations. 

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property

Save Indian Family protests at PM house against proposed Hindu Marriage Act Amendment on wife's rights on Husband's inherited property. The protesting activists at 7 RCR, PM house, where the meeting was being held were arrested by Delhi Police and taken to chankyapuri police station where they were later released after about one and half of detension

Brave MEN/HUSBANDS do not tolerate injustice



Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill referred to GoM

The controversial Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was on Wednesday referred to a Group of Ministers after differences cropped up over clauses dealing with a woman’s right to marital property in case of divorce.

The Union Cabinet, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, deliberated at length on the proposed legislation but failed to arrive at a consensus and the matter was then referred to a GoM.

The Law Ministry had suggested that a woman be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable premises, in case of divorce.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development has suggested that a woman’s right to inheritable property and property acquired by the husband before marriage be kept out of the purview of the law.

The ministers discussed the amendments for over two hours during the meeting of the Cabinet.

“When thinking men and women present different opinions, different opinions do not mean difference of opinion,” Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said when asked whether the Cabinet was split on the matter.

“Views are expressed in a Cabinet and after expressing views, the Prime Minister takes the final decision. In this case the matter has been referred to a Group of Ministers to look at one or two clauses of the Bill,” he said.

The GoM would examine the clauses over the next few days and the Bill will come back before the Cabinet, he said.

Even as the Cabinet was discussing the matter, a small group of protestors shouted slogans against the Bill outside the Prime Minister’s official residence.

They were rounded up by the police and taken away from the high security zone.


Ministries differ over divorcee’s right to inherited property

01 May 2013

NEW DELHI: Sharp differences have emerged within the government on a woman's right to marital property after a divorce. The law ministry has mooted amendments suggesting that a woman should have a share in a residential property acquired by the husband bought not only during or before marriage, but also inherited and inheritable property. In contrast, the ministry of women and child development (WCD) had recommended that property acquired before marriage or that is expected to be inherited should be excluded from the purview of this law.

The Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill is likely to be taken up for the Union Cabinet's approval on Wednesday. This is the second time that there has been a difference in opinion between the two arms of government. The two ministries had also clashed on the issue of lowering the age of consent in the anti-rape legislation. While the law ministry sought lowering the age of consent to 16 years, the WCD ministry was opposed to the move mooting 18 years as the age of consent.

According to sources, the WCD ministry had argued that there would be practical difficulties in implementing the law that could work against the woman's claim to marital property. The ministry had, therefore, suggested that a woman seeking divorce should not have claim to property that has been acquired before marriage or that which is "inheritable" (expected to be inherited.)

The government also proposes to redefine the phrase 'residential property' to include not just the residential house but also other properties acquired by the husband. In case, others, besides the husband, also have rights in the inherited property and it is impractical to divide it, the wife would have the right to receive an equivalent amount of money in place of her share.

The wife would have an equal share in the property regardless of whether it was acquired before or after marriage and regardless of whether it is only in the husband's name or held jointly.

The changes in the Bill have been brought after considerable pressure from civil society as well as members of Parliament.

The government had earlier introduced the amendment bill in order to alter the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, providing the option of divorce on grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' as a ground for divorce.

The government also for the first time introduced a legislated right for the wife to a share in the movable and immovable residential properties.

Conflicting views

Law ministry: woman should get share in marital residential property acquired by husband, partly or jointly owned, before, during marriage. She also has a right to property inherited or inheritable.

WCD ministry: woman's claim to property bought before marriage or inheritable should be excluded.

Union Cabinet likely to take up the issue on Wednesday